Your problem is trying to argue based on an academic definition (that is not universally defined) against the common usage of the word dominant and doing a piss poor job of making that clear.
We are in the “science” community and the post asked which animal will replace humans as Earth’s dominance species. I commented that “dominant species” does not exist in biology.
You people are the ones freaking out over it and trying to come up with a definition. I was speaking about the academic definition from the beginning. But good to hear you finally admit that there is no scientific definition or meaning to this phrase, that was my comment from the beginning. We are done in this discussion then.
Sure, if my goal was to entertain their proposed definition.
My goal was instead commenting that this might be a fun endeavor for some, but remind everybody else that might not be familiar with biological sciences that this isn’t actually a formal definition or a scientific claim that one species is or isn’t dominant.
We are in the “science” community and the post asked which animal will replace humans as Earth’s dominance species. I commented that “dominant species” does not exist in biology.
You people are the ones freaking out over it and trying to come up with a definition. I was speaking about the academic definition from the beginning. But good to hear you finally admit that there is no scientific definition or meaning to this phrase, that was my comment from the beginning. We are done in this discussion then.
You could read the article for their definition of dominant and use it like the rest of us are.
Sure, if my goal was to entertain their proposed definition.
My goal was instead commenting that this might be a fun endeavor for some, but remind everybody else that might not be familiar with biological sciences that this isn’t actually a formal definition or a scientific claim that one species is or isn’t dominant.